This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
History
I've added this template to each page in Category:Wikipedia official policy, so that the two of them match up. Radiant_* 11:51, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
The added text is redundant and unnecessary. I'm not going to get into an revert war over it, but I still think that it should be edited out [1]. BlankVerse∅ 04:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
There is confusion between what is policy and what is guideline. I've added this text, and text to Template:Guideline, to show that the distinction is that policy is what everyone must follow. Guidelines, on the other hand, are good practices which noone is forced to follow. I would have thought the distinction was obvious too, but I think this added text is necessary. -- Netoholic@ 05:28, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Then change it to "and should be considered a standard that everyone must follow." (with "binding" removed). I find the current redundancy annoying when I read it.
Also, there is confusion between what is policy and what is a guideline because many of the "rules" on the Wikipedia grew rather organically in the beginning without any surveys or even much consensus seeking. If someone wrote something and there were no major objected, it ended up as part of the policies and guidelines. That means that many of the pages fit into some gray area between the two (and there are a few "rules" that should probably be reconsidered since the Wikipedia has grown so much since some of them were originally written). Also, we both know that the reality of the Wikipedia is that although most editors on the Wikipedia are well-behaved, there are still numerous breaches of both policies and guidelines on the Wikipedia everyday, but it is only the most egregious examples that usually end up in arbitration (this is NOT intended as a jab at you, and I'm not referring specifically to your AFAr—it's from reading the l--o--n--g list at WP:RFC and similar WP pages, as well as observing the (mis)behavior in situ).
Note: I won't edit your spelling, but please see [2] and [3]. BlankVerse∅ 10:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I think what pages are policy is very clear. Most of the "organic" pages you mention are really guidelines since there was never any attempt to make them binding on everyone. Certainly, if someone violates a guideline repeatedly, they may come under review at some level. On the other hand, anyone that break policies seems to be shot down very quickly. -- Netoholic@ 15:39, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
3.5 years later...see this continuation of discussion [4]Chergles (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
is considered -> is
The template says, right now, This page is considered an official policy on Wikipedia. I think that's an unnecessary softening of the statement that actually makes it more confusing. It's not clear by whom the page is considered policy. If it is considered that by Wikipedia's decision-making bodies (including the community consensus), then the page is an official policy, by definition of that word. If it's considered to be so by some other organization, group, or individual, well... that might need to be explained, and it's arguable whether that fact needs to be called out at the top of a policy page. ("This page is considered official Wikipedia policy by the American Automobile Association.")
I think we only use this template on real official policy pages, so barring objections I'm going to change it to This page is an official policy on Wikipedia. I think it's clearer and just better English usage. --ESP 19:42, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
Why do we have these boxes
I'm trying to figure out why we have these boxes. They seem to me to serve two main purposes, neither of them good. First, they serve to prevent policy pages from being updated. In theory, this sounds nice because it means that policy pages cannot be changed willy nilly. In practice, it means that policy pages are inaccurate. WP:SOCK is a particularly flagrant offender - in practice, sockpuppets are a lot less tolerated than the page suggests. But I'm sure if I were to try to change it I would be reverted by a chorus of people, most of them citing the template on the page that says don't edit. The problem is that, well, sure, they can win the edit war on whether to change the policy page, but fundamentally, whether the page is changed or not, sockpuppets are still a lot less tolerated than the page suggests, and the page remains inaccurate. Secondly, it serves to denigrate pages like WP:POINT that are, like it or not, the law of the land in terms of what actually gets things done.
I'm increasingly unsure what role official policy has on Wikipedia anymore - as we get bigger, we seem to be increasingly relying on local policies among specific communities of editors and an overarching structure of admins who deal with sitewide issues and apply some basic principles, all of which is further overseen by the arbcom, which also applies principles much more than policies. (In fact, notably, the arbcom doesn't cite policy - it cites principles).
If these policy pages are going to have any usefulness - and I think they should - I think we need to seriously consider abandoning policy classification schemes entirely and let practicality reign - noting how things work instead of describing an increasingly inaccurate system of how they might work. Snowspinner 20:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the requirement from "discuss on talk page" (procedural, tactical) to "consensus" (organisational, strategic). Hopefully this addresses your concern. Kim Bruning 16:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
redirect to guideline
Actually, I should have noticed ages ago. Some old wikipedia pages still refer to themselves as guidelines, while they are actually more important than some pages marked as policy. It might be wiser to keep "guideline" and "policy" synonymous. This is a rather late realisation, but then again, folks haven't tried to tidy up policy in ages either. :-/ Kim Bruning 04:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a rather important distinction between the two now. WP:MUSIC is obviously less firm than WP:NPA or WP:3RR. I don't know what to say other than that. Wait, I do: solicit more opinions before making a change like this. This template is off the beaten path, so nobody is watching the talk page, but it's very important. Getting opinions at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) would have been appropriate. -- SCZenz 06:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I've put a note on the village pump page for you. However, this redirect changed many core Wikipedia rules, simltaneously, from "a standard that all users should follow" to something "which many editors agree with in principle." Things like WP:NPOV definitely deserve the stronger language, and I think making a broad change was an irresponsible misinterpretation of WP:BOLD. -- SCZenz 06:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the guideline template has been abused too much. I noticed that NOT making the changes definately FUBARs policy, so I did it. If changing the template also fubars policy, then we're going to have to delete it, or something... Kim Bruning 07:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
How about you address specific pages that have been mislabeled as guidelines?
If it's this FUBARed, it's truely FUBARed. It will take time to sort out. And you have to start somewhere. You'd rather I just didn't start here, right? :-) Kim Bruning
How about you give administrators some warning before you undermine their ability to do their jobs by softening the language on policy pages? To quote you, "If you mess around with templates, you can cause massive damage to multiple pages. Don't do it again please." [5]
Yes, I did a quick fix. So people can then take the time that buys them to figure a better and more permanent fix. Don't just revert randomly. That compounds the problems, rather than fixes them. It's always wiser to quickly check with someone, especially if they're making a big change. Kim Bruning
You made a "quick fix" to a long-term problem, where there was time to discuss and consider first. I reverted it to mitigate immediate harm to the ability of the Wiki to function. -- SCZenz 22:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
We are now mutually accusing each other of causing immediate harm. Kim Bruning
If you think something major needs to be changed, can you please please please discuss it? I'm sorry you don't like the way things have changed since a couple of years ago, but I don't think quick, massive, and unannounced (even afterwards!) changes to important pages is even slightly appropriate.
I already have made statements all over the place that I'm busy working on tidying policy. Other people are helping me out occaisionally too. It's a mess! And let's not even start about the help pages. I'm not even going there yet. Kim Bruning
Not precicely addressed there, but I'm still considering how to answer :-) Kim Bruning
Rather than a guideline quote, you can just consider this common sense: don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. -- SCZenz 07:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not disrupting, because my intent was to mitigate harm from people playing with templates where they shouldn't have. And I don't have much of a point, except that policy should be tidy and self-consistent. I'm also not adverse to new rules from time to time by the way, just sometimes people have made stupid ones too, and no one has taken the time to clean those out yet. Kim Bruning 22:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Your intent is good; that doesn't mean you're not disrupting the Wiki. Every policy page has broad consensus, or it's mislabeled; the only cleanup a single user can do without discussion would be changing those that are mislabeled. So, the question is, which ones do you think are mislabeled, and why? -- SCZenz 22:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
A single user can't do cleanup? Kim Bruning 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
It is my view that there is a useful distinction between "policy" and "guideline" and that this template should not redirect to {{Guideline}}. It may be that soem pages are mislabled, adn should be listed as "policy" when they are not currently, or vice-versa. But I think that the distinction between the two levels is valid and should remain. DES(talk) 20:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Policies are merely suggestions that people are in general agreement about, but there are always exceptions. Calling them "policies", as if they were written but some governing body, or as if they are always enforceable, is entirely misleading. We now have users believing not only that "consensus voting" is NOT an oxymoron, but that it is enforceable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-7 20:52
Most policy pages should be guidelines. What {{policy}} says is primarily two things:
If you think you have good reasons to disregard this, you're probably wrong
Be prepared to invest a lot of work and nerves if you want this page to change
This is especially important for things where consistency is more important than doing it in the best possible manner. We don't want people to use common sense to transclude discussion on AfD, even if their way is better. It must be done in a consistent manner to make the process workable. Zocky 21:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
This template is about ENGLISH language Wikipedia only
The statement is too broad. The policies that are accepted on this Wikipedia are not necessarily accepted elsewhere. GerardM 11:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I second that. There is confusion on other wikipedias on this matter. The template must state "This is considered an official policy on "English Wikipedia". There are actually other wikipedias too. / Fred-Chess 16:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
We should have different templates for foundation-level policies (NPOV, Verifiability, OrigResearch, Copyright, Office actions etc) and policies which only have juristiction over the English wikipedia (naming conventions, procedural policies such as deletion, arbitration, etc) Elvarg 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. The parameters work the same as {{policy2}} for backwards compatibility. æle✆ 18:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Feel free
Locke, you're behaving as though you own these templates. You say people should feel free to make changes to policy, but when I try to make a change to a template, you won't allow it. The content policy pages must be stable. SlimVirgin(talk) 12:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No, actually I don't behave like that. But thanks for the good faith. I don't say anything: the language says people should feel free to change it, but that major changes should be discussed. Removing or rewording the Feel free passage is a "major change". —Locke Cole • t • c 12:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Locke, I conceded to you on the guideline template, even though others wanted the change too, but you're acting as though you must have your own way 100 per cent of the time. No one sensible wants new editors with 30 edits to "feel free" to change the content policies, as has happened a few times lately. SlimVirgin(talk) 12:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What are you playing at? This is not a major change. It doesn't tell people not to edit. It says before you update, make sure your edits reflect consensus. Please stop reverting my edits. SlimVirgin(talk) 13:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems you're on revert parole. Please don't revert again. SlimVirgin(talk) 13:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not acting like that at all. I think a major change like this (especially on something that's been this way for months) should see wide discussion before being changed without so much as an edit summary. BTW, maybe you didn't notice, but I wasn't the only one to revert you. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
See dispute resolution. I'm pretty sure it doesn't include any of the methods currently being pursued: revert warring, accusing other of ownership violation for reverting as much as you have, et cetera. Try an RFC or something. --CBDunkerson 15:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Policy pages should be edited with caution, since all of Wikipedia hangs on them. The changes reflect good practice. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
No offense, but the world will not come crashing down because someone makes an innocent edit to a policy page. As it says in the language that's been used for months, major changes should be discussed. If someone is making a major change, they're not acting in good faith with respect to what the boilerplate says. Innocent people, which I think are the vast majority of people who'll see this, should not feel intimidated by a page marked as policy.
As a side note, I've made a request for comment per CBDunkerson's suggestion (at WP:RFC/POLICIES). I'm also going to leave a note at one of the village pumps. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It's entirely inappropriate to advise people to "be bold" and "feel free" when editing policies or guidelines, but particularly policies. The people most likely to take this advice are newbies who precisely should not "be bold" when approaching a policy page. It's horribly ironic that you want to advocate "be bold" for policies, but you won't let anyone edit a template. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll agree that linking to the "be bold" page might not be the best idea, but the wording should stay. People should be encouraged to make small updates if they see that it's necessary. That other variation discourages this. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Someguy0830. Remove the link to be bold but keep the wording. --Ligulem 22:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem with "free free" and "be bold" is that newbies (and older editors come to that) aren't familar with the policies, which is why they should be advised to check that their changes reflect consensus. Locke Cole is not one of those who regularly defends the policy pages against newbie changes, and it's therefore easy for him to advise people to be bold. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually I have a number of policy and guideline pages on my watchlist, thanks for asking. What you need to prove here is that people making these changes wouldn't make them anyways, even without this language. I don't believe you can (or will) do that. On the other hand, I strongly believe we should encourage people to participate in policy/guideline creation/evolution. It's a wiki, even our policies are subject to the wiki-way. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Interiot's tool shows you haven't made a single edit to any of the content policies, not even a revert. I didn't understand your sentence about what I need to prove. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, now it's just content policies... cute. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the old wording. The technical issues with the shortcut are solved as far as I'm concerned, for two templates with three parameters {{Villagepumppages}} and {{Wikipedia subcat guideline}} I've migrated them to the new shortcut-template. For the rest of the zoo (one paramter) somebody will update them after the shortcut/ Tfd, it's simple:
Not very exciting and not depending on anything containing the letters if.
The actual content with "feel free but" is fine. The policy wording is decent: "wide acceptance among editors". The others should stay below this level, claiming that some obscure guidelines not touched for years are the "consensus of many editors" or similar is wishful thinking (or worse). -- Omniplex 22:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
RfC
For anyone coming from the RfC, the alternatives are below. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose any major changes.
or
Please make sure that any changes you make to this policy reflect consensus before you make them and use the discussion page to propose any major changes.
Frankly, I'd prefer something more to the point (e.g. "Wikipedia is not a game of nomic, so stop trying."), but absent that, I suppose the second version will have to do. As a general rule, anybody who still pays attention to the little page banners probably shouldn't be making changes to major policies anyways ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it's not so much the people who still pay attention to the "little banners", it's the people who would try to use this to limit changes to policies or guidelines. Nothing (or very little) on Wikipedia requires consensus first; you can make a change, if another disagrees, they can revert you. Then you discuss and try to find consensus. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The policy pages, and particularly the content policies, must be stable because they're constantly being linked to to make specific points e.g. from arbcom cases. We can't have a situation where people are linking to them and the points they make can't be trusted to be there because of frequent changes. It's perfectly acceptable to ask people to make sure (either because they're very familiar with the policies and the consensus, or by checking on talk if they're not) that any change reflects consensus. It doesn't tell them not to make changes, just to exercise caution. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I do miss the "please use the discussion page to propose any major changes" in Slim's variant. Is "please use the discussion page to propose any major changes" unacceptable? --Ligulem 22:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I have no problem with that, Ligulem. By only beef is with "free free" and "be bold." I've added that sentence to the alternative as that may be a good compromise. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
So what is your proposed wording now? .... Bah, already 0:50 for me. Need to have some sleep now. So please be kind to each other now! I want to have peace here while I'm sleeping :-) --Ligulem 22:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
As above: "Please make sure that any changes you make to this policy reflect consensus before you make them and use the discussion page to propose any major changes." SlimVirgin(talk) 23:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so Locke Cole's concern seems to be the possible establishment of 'Policy Gestapo' who revert any change to the policies and guidelines unless they have been approved by an 80% consensus of 20+ users, engraved in stone, and sealed by a blood oath. SlimVirgin instead seems to fear the 'Chaotic Hordes' who will completely rewrite the policy pages seven times a day such that no one can guess what the policy might be at any given moment. Perhaps I exaggerate slightly (:]), but those seem to be the general issues. There ought to be room in the middle somewhere though. Can "exercise caution" be reconciled with "feel free"? I think they can. Something like; "Feel free to update the page if needed, but consider your changes carefully and please use the discussion page to propose any major or potentially controversial changes." --CBDunkerson 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly my fear, and I think your proposed wording is fine. This is a wiki, let's not try and add new levels of bureaucracy by limiting what people can do. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I object to the inclusion of "free free" or any reference or link to "be bold." SlimVirgin(talk) 23:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Why? Somehow the Wiki hasn't imploded in the year since it was on {{Guideline}} (or the 8 months it's been on {{Policy}}). What has suddenly changed (and can be linked to "feel free" or "be bold") that justifies this drastic change to the language you've proposed? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not a "drastic change." I want to get rid of "feel free" and "be bold," because some new editors have misunderstood it, or rather, they understood it accurately to mean "do what you want without consulting anyone" on content policies. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Changing how policies/guidelines are edited is not a drastic change? Requiring consensus first before making changes is not a drastic change? Why didn't you try eating your own dogfood here and get consensus first for this change instead of attempting to revert war it in? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
My version doesn't change how policies are edited. It reflects how they are actually edited. Newbies are not in fact allowed to turn up and add or delete material on the policy pages as they see fit, and no template should encourage them to think they can. Also, if you read WP:BOLD, the first sentence says it applies to articles. I have no idea what your reference to dog food means. SlimVirgin(talk) 00:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes it absolutely does change how policies (and guidelines) are edited. WP:BOLD is a redirect to Be bold in updating pages. The little graphic? "Be bold in updating pages". The reference to dog food is basically asking you to try out your proposal yourself before inflicting it on others. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence of WP:BOLD says (emphasis added): "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles." The policies give structure to WP. Common sense alone tells you that newbies being bold by changing policy pages is not a good thing. As for your dog-food reference, I said I don't understand it: how could I "try out [my] proposal [myself] before inflicting it on others"? SlimVirgin(talk) 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
That's nice. Interesting that the page is called "Be bold in updating pages". —Locke Cole • t • c 21:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
How many people changing policy really think their change will turn out to be controversial? ;-) I think it might be easier if we switch to third person. How abou: "Editors can update the page if needed, but are urged to use the discussion page to propose any substantative changes beforehand." Kirill Lokshin 23:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
"Feel free to update the page if needed, but consider your changes carefully and please use the discussion page to propose any major or potentially controversial changes." I like this wording. It's more specific and keeps the style of the original. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a really terrible idea to encourage people to change the fundamental rules which govern Wikipedia. I also note the irony that when someone actually made a small change to the policy template, it was immediately reverted by the person who is arguing we should encourage everyone to make bold changes to policy pages. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
What you call a "small change" is in all actuality a very major change. You're going from encouraging people to participate in policy and guideline formation to requiring consensus and/or discussion before edits are made. Regarding the change here: the language included (prior to SlimVirgin's change) "but please use the discussion page to propose any major changes". It should have been obvious after the first revert that this was viewed (at least by one person) as a major change. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It is viewed by you as a major change. But you haven't made a single edit to a content policy page in your whole time here. Those pages are as a matter of fact edited the way my version of the template indicates i.e. newbie edits made without discussuion are almost always reverted, because they almost always contradict some other part of the policy, or some other policy entirely. It's therefore inappropriate to have a template that advises them to "free free" and to "be bold," particularly when the advice to be bold applies to articles, as WP:BOLD says. SlimVirgin(talk) 00:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a number of them watchlisted, and I have edited a number of policy pages as well as a number of guideline pages. Please stop trying to engage in ad hominen attacks, they only show how pathetic your position is. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Part of being bold is not being reckless. This is part of the guideline. New editors who don't pay attention to this part are not likely to pay attention to the alternate wording either. I seriously doubt their edits are based on the encouragement given in the template. Rather, the mere fact that they can edit a page is their only incentive. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
LC, please review WP:CIV. Interiot's tool shows you have never edited a content policy. That's directly relevant here. Those who do edit those pages understand the importance of not advising newbies to "feel free" or "be bold." SlimVirgin(talk) 00:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Eh? I'm not the one who engaged in ad hominen attacks; try civility yourself before you go preaching it to others. Re: my policy edits, as I'm sure you're aware, there are other kinds of policies on Wikipedia besides content policies. I have edited those, ergo your claim of "no content policy edits" is irrelevant. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with SlimVirgin. Provided that we're not telling users that they're prohibited to make any changes (no matter how minor) without clear consensus, I don't see what the problem is. I do, however, see the problem with telling people that they should "be bold" and "feel free" to edit policy pages. Indeed, this standard applies to articles, and it's illogical to actively encourage such behavior in the context of policies. —David Levy 00:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems like some people are dead set against 'be bold / feel free'. However, others are equally opposed to 'must prove consensus before updating'. How about something like;
"This page may be updated if needed, but please consider your changes carefully and use the discussion page to propose any major or potentially controversial changes."
Doesn't 'encourage people to make random changes' and doesn't 'imply you are not allowed to make changes'. Changes are allowed... reasonable consideration should be taken first. If the concerns are really against 'boldness' or 'restrictiveness' then a version which is neither bold nor restrictive should be ok. --CBDunkerson 12:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree that a link from {{policy}} to WP:BB is dubious, the latter is only a guideline, and it's unusual that a policy page has to be updated unilaterally and immediately - excl. repairs of course.
But for some guideline pages it's quite normal to update them, and a link to WP:BB indicating that this can be okay is essential. The list of templates that should or can't be subst'ed is an example. And there are enough watchers, bogus modifications won't stick.
I wonder why WP:BB is no policy, it's essential for newbies because the natural attitude is "don't break things, be careful". Completely wrong here, there's an edit hitory, errors can be fixed. I also wonder why WP:SNOW isn't at least a guideline. The "feel free" blurb is just another version of WP:SNOW, necessary and uncontroversial modifications are okay. With Murphy some modifications will turn out to be not uncontroversial, so what? It's for guidelines the same issue as for articles and templates. For real fights or vandalism there are other procedures like protection. And vandals or warriors won't change their way if the link to WP:BB is removed. -- Omniplex 17:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
But at least they wouldn't have a template to back them up. This is a question of common sense (which should be policy, if only we could mandate it). We don't want newbies steaming in to change long-standing content policies. Therefore, we shouldn't have a template that advises them to. SlimVirgin(talk) 20:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
We don't have a template that advises them to. We have a template that tells them to "Feel free to update the page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose any major changes.". We even link directly to the talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
And it links to WP:BOLD, which anyone with any common sense can see is not appropriate for policy pages, and especially not for content policies. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Look, the only way you're going to sway me here is if you show permanent damage this has caused. As this is a wiki, it's impossible to show me that (because any damage that is done can be undone). On the other hand, inserting your preferred language (which insists people gain consensus before making an edit) is very damaging: it would give people the wrong idea about how policies and guidelines on Wikipedia evolve (and would in fact likely give them the impression they don't evolve). So please, just because some people made some edits to a content policy a few times that you didn't like, don't try and punish the rest of the community that can see the difference between a minor edit (fixing a grammar or spelling error) and a major edit (removing or inserting whole sections). We should encourage participation in policy and guideline creation, not discourage it as your language would do. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your interpretation of SlimVirgin's wording. It doesn't ask users to "gain" consensus; it merely asks them to make sure that their changes "reflect" consensus. In my opinion, there's nothing unreasonable about stipulating that a policy shouldn't be modified in a manner that contradicts consensus. —David Levy 22:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions
Let's consider a series of general ideas (more than specific wordings—discount all formatting, and the presence or absence of links, for now; also, "please" could be added to any of them, which would make them softer as well as less intimidating). Which of these do you like best?
Do not edit this page except to correct clear typographical errors unless your change has achieved clear consensus on this policy's talk page.
Do not edit this page except to make minor changes to formatting that don't change the page's meaning, unless your change has achieved clear consensus on this policy's talk page.
Do not make major or potentially controversial edits to this page unless unless your change has achieved clear consensus on this policy's talk page.
Feel free to edit this page, but be careful that it reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this policy's talk page.
Feel free to edit this page, but try to make sure it reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this policy's talk page.
Feel free to edit this page, but try to make sure it reflects consensus.
Feel free to edit this page, but if your edits are reverted, discuss the issue on this policy's talk page rather than reinstating your changes.
I think I like the idea behind 7 best, maybe 6. I think 10 goes quite a lot too far, but I do like the point there; it could be added on top of one of the stricter numbers. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say we can be easier with the guideline template than the policy one. For guidelines, #7 would be fine with me. For policy, I would prefer to steer clear of anything like "feel free," and definitely no link to "be bold." Thanks for writing these up, Simetrical. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
#7 is agreeable for both policies and guidelines. For guidelines, it'd be nice if the "Feel free" linked to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Remember that a policy just implies that it has wider/more support from the community, not that it's any more set in stone than a guideline. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Locke Cole, you're not agreeing to any compromise. I'm willing to concede on the guideline template, and I'm also willing to consider different wording for the policy template (i.e. different from the version I prefer). The only two things I ask (and others agree) is that "feel free" and "be bold" be left off the policy template. Please make some concessions too. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I prefer wording #6 (or something similar) for both guidelines and policies. The fact that users are permitted to edit the page is implied, and I feel that this is more than sufficient. I don't see why special encouragement is advisable, and the "feel free" wording fails to make sense whenever a page is temporarily protected. —David Levy 03:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
No. 6 would work for me too, although I'd prefer "be sure" to "be careful" i.e. "When editing this page, be sure that your edits reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." SlimVirgin(talk) 03:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
How about the following wording: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." —David Levy 04:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, and a quite common sense approach. Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I still strongly object to this change and believe it to be reactionary, but it seems I'm out numbered, which is unfortunate (not for me, but for the wiki). I will not object to this language being put in place now, but would like to keep this discussion (the RFC) open for a few more days in the odd event someone who agrees with me shows up. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've inserted the agreed text. I checked first with Thebainer, as he's protected both templates as high risk, and he agreed. I have no problem leaving the RfC up for a few more days. Thank you for agreeing, Locke. SlimVirgin(talk) 06:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Fwiw, the new version works for me. There was definitely a contradiction between "feel free" the real intent which was to discourage people from editing it. Stevage 14:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Er.. where was this "real intent" stated? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Protected
Does it need to be? "High-risk" usually means it's used on hundreds of visible pages, so vandalism would have massive consequences. This is used around 50 times, and all of them in project workspace. Could this be unprotected? In particular, there seems to be some extra space. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Stevage 14:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
<aol> me 2 </aol> Kim Bruning 15:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
How is a template used on less than 50 pages "high risk"? Stevage 19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Policies are important and high-visibility...? I guess. æ²✆2006-06-13t20:19z
High risk does not necessarily mean high volume; this template is exclusively used on the high visibility policy pages, which are a fairly regular vandalism target, and particularly important to keep in their proper condition. --bainer (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
fr:Modèle:Politique officielle was renamed to fr:Modèle:Règle officielle. Please change interwiki, or unprotect the template if you're bored of having to watch this page and doing small changes like that all the time. _R_ 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Category parameter
A cute trick used in several templates adding pages to a category is to say
There are rendering problems with the SVG last I heard. Check the history. æ²✆2006-07-06t02:25z
I see what you're talking about, but whatever rendering issue there was seems to be fixed now. Check the usage of Image:Yes check.svg — It's currently being used on a number of pages, without any problem. ~ Booya Bazooka 03:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It has to do with PNG-24 rendering problems in IE. æ²✆2006-07-06t12:49z
Well... I'm not sure what to say. I'm looking at it in IE5, and it seems fine. I still can't tell what any problem could possibly be, and I'm growing frustrated at this page protection, without which I could just show you that everything will be okay.
This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
The SVG is rendered as a PNG-24 image. Instead of transparency, IE6 (and presumably IE5) users receive a white (255,255,255) background. (Can't you see that?) The same issue exists with Image:Green check.png (a native PNG-24 image), but I've assigned a background attribute of 249,249,249 (the shade of gray used in the template) for IE6 (and presumably IE5) users.
What advantage do you believe would be gained by switching to the SVG version? In addition to the background issue, the PNG file derived from Image:Yes check.svg is 21% larger than Image:Green check.png. —David Levy 18:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I really can't see it. Guess my eyes aren't keen enough to detect a 6-point difference in shades of gray... I thought the template background was white. I've been trying to push the usage of SVG in general because vector graphics are much easier to edit, so it pains me to see a PNG in use when the SVG version differs only by a tiny bit of gray and 103 bytes. ~ Booya Bazooka 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Green check.png is an optimized version of the PNG file automatically derived from Image:Yes check.svg by the MediaWiki software. If the SVG is edited, the PNG version can be updated in a matter of minutes (assuming that this is desirable). —David Levy 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose this is a somewhat acceptable, however awkward and less-than-ideal solution. Removing editprotected template. ~ Booya Bazooka 18:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
IMO the small PNG was optimized in the wrong direction, size reduction instead of colour reduction, it's still true colour. Like the SVG rendered as PNG, the latter with the known transparency issue (I can't judge PNG transparency details with my tools). Just for fun I've created a possible replacement image:Green_check.gif, also less than 1000 bytes, but 240*240 and only one colour, green. -- Omniplex 04:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No offense, but that looks terrible. (I attempted to create an 8-bit version myself, with similarly poor results.) —David Levy 05:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought when I saw the small PNG with its (apparently) eight colours, the other 16777218 unused - okay, more than 900 colours is impossible with 30*30 pixels... ;-) Next attempt, now 64 colours, still 240*240, I don't see a big difference from the "source" (= what I get as PNG when looking at the SVG). Now 3711 bytes, still smaller than the 7058 for the SVG-PNG. -- Omniplex 05:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
...and in the 3rd attempt I managed to upload this new image instead of the old again and again, time to go to bed, bye, -- Omniplex 05:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Your new GIF is much better than the old one, but it still scales poorly. —David Levy 06:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This can depend on the browser, but from 240*240 to 30*30 shouldn't be too difficult. Anyway, 3rd attempt, 3668 bytes, now online. Using a direct PNG to GIF conversion with 255 colours I arrived at 31, and checking the 2bd variant I found that this was also 31, not 63. 3rd and 2nd version are different, but I don't see any difference. -- Omniplex 13:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Update after reading PNG: My tool doesn't count the actually used colours, too bad. Apparently PNG can use a palette (index access) or directly encode 8+8+8 bits (in your case without alpha channel) for 256 or less colours, and what's "better" wrt size depends on the compression. For an otherwise identical result. PNG is cute, unfortunately the Mozilla folks didn't implement it back in 1997. -- Omniplex 13:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Attach the policy list to this tag
I think it'd be simple to attach (merge) the Template:policylist to this, to ensure that they're together. Any comments? Fresheneesz 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
{{policy}} is a tag for any policy page whereas {{policylist}} does not belong on every policy page. It only belongs on select policy pages and also on pages that aren't specifically policy pages in the way people are trying to standardize them. It is, in fact, least useful on many policy pages and is actually more used by users in their namespace for quick links. —Centrx→talk • 01:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I realized its not a good idea. Fresheneesz 01:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Edit protected
Please add [[ar:قالب:سياسة]]--TheEgyptian 23:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Can any admin link "English Wikipedia" in order to highlight it and make it clearer that the policy described applied on the English language edition. 16@r 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What is it supposed to link to and why is this necessary or even appropriate? —Centrx→talk • 04:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This template is only used on en (who would put an English template at the top of a policy from another language?). You may have had a problem where someone on another project thought that en policies apply there. In that case, explaining to them that policies are per-project will help more than putting a link here. CMummert · talk 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
New image
Could an admin please replace the current image with Image:Yes check.svg as its a more advanced version.
My mistake, your highness. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Did I offend you? —David Levy 19:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Nah, overstatement on my part. I should have checked the talk page more carefully. Apologies. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Wording
The wording of this template, which has never been correct, is becoming more and more a problem, as editors who don't know better think that policy pages can't be edited before a drawn-out discussion on the talk page. The sentence about finding consensus first needs to be seriously rephrased or removed. Perhaps it made more sense when more editors knew not to take it seriously, but at the moment it is an obstacle to productive editing of policies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd argue about it being the "correct" place (afterall, that page wasn't used when this template was initially protected, why would I want to go there for unprotection?), but at any rate, the moved request there was rejected and I was told to contact the protecting admin. I did so, and he has indicated he would not object to the template being unprotected if there was consensus for that. So here we are again... —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
None of {{guideline}}, {{essay}}, {{disputedtag}}, {{freq}}, {{how-to}}, {{inactive}}, {{project}}, {{nutshell}}, or {{rejected}} are even semi-protected, currently. Of the pages this template will be transcluded on, most are not directly protected and are open to general editing without apparent catastrophe. Is there some pressing reason this template needs to be protected? I'm not sure if it was originally protected due to some abuse, but the protection dates to 2006. I bet we could bump it down a notch, down to semiprot if nothing else, and probably be fine. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I've disabled {{editprotected}}, as requests to protect/unprotect pages should be made via WP:RFPP. --ais523 12:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ummm...did you read the above? We're already past that point.
Given the absence of anyone arguing that this template should be protected, I'm just going to go ahead and unprotect it. Should a contrary consensus form, we can go from there. —David Levy 13:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I just tried three times to unprotect the template, and this had no apparent effect. I assume that this is due to some sort of glitch, so I'll try again later. —David Levy 13:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I failed as well. This is likely one of the 9000 or so pages with invalid protection statuses that are in the enwiki database. There was a software fix that's meant to fix this which will be mentioned in this week's Signpost, but it isn't active yet, and I think it might have been reverted because it caused software problems elsewhere. Hopefully they'll get it fixed again. --ais523 11:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Unprotected; the software's been fixed now. --ais523 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 19:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wording is misleading
I'm afraid the wording of this template tends to promote the incorrect view that policy on Wikipedia is normative, when in fact it is anything but. The template should be changed to reflect the fact that on Wikipedia, "policy" merely describes what has typically happened in the past in certain situations, and should make it clear that users are under no obligation to abide by it in any given situation. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I was reverted on that edit, but the revert was marked as minor (so almost didn't catch it), and no rationale was provided in revert or on this talk page. Please provide such a rationale. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't revert a long-standing template without discussion. People have already objected to IAR being included on the guideline template, so it's not likely to be welcomed here. SlimVirgintalk|edits 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The last discussion I can find was concluded on January 30, and the current situation is that IAR and COMMON are included, which I assume to be the current consensus. Can you point to any location where this current consensus (as of march 31 2008) is challenged? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah sorry, you indicated there were issues with the guideline template, but the best relevant discussion on that topic that I could find was on template talk:guideline ending on Jan 30. (question 1) Do you know of anything more recent, challenging the current status quo?
(question 2) I'll ask my next question simultaneously, to move things along. Could you explain why you are opposed to linking IAR on this template? It 's one of the 5 pillars, and is quite relevant to policy.
It's misleading to add IAR to a policy template. You couldn't, for example, IAR and add to a BLP on John Smith that he was having an affair with his neigbour's teenage daughter, unless you had an RS, even if you knew it to be true. It would be reverted within seconds, and if you persisted, you'd be blocked. So it's pointless and misleading to refer to IAR. Experienced editors already know the limits, and inexperienced ones shouldn't be encouraged to test them. SlimVirgintalk|edits 22:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Would the example you provide actually improve the encyclopedia? --Kim Bruning (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It might in someone's opinion, if they were convinced it was true and important. Violating policy would often improve the encyclopedia in someone's opinion, which is why encouraging people to IAR when it comes to policy is not a good idea. As I said above, experienced editors know how far the policies can be stretched and when they don't apply, so they don't need to be told to IAR. The only people this would interest are inexperienced ones, and they're likely to get it wrong. It's therefore advice that has no target audience, as it were. SlimVirgintalk|edits 16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If you think IAR is such a bad idea when applied to policy, why do you not try to place an exception for policy at WP:IAR? Though in reality I find that rather foolish. IAR applies to policy. And it is specifically new users that need to learn this. So what if they make a mistake? We can easily correct them. Better than a mistake in the other direction, where they feel constrained by too many rules when in reality there are none; or where they feel compelled to wikilawyer. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SlimVirgin. While IAR applies to policy, any user with enough experience to know when a policy should be bent already knows that this is permissible. Others should simply be encouraged to follow policy until they possess this level of knowledge (at which point they belong to the former group) and unless an experienced editor explains that a specific departure from policy is advisable. Given the fact that policy usually should be followed, it's vastly preferable to address individual instances of excessive adherence than it is to lead inexperienced users to believe that all adherence is optional.
That's not to say that policy should be blindly enforced with respect to these individuals (even when they're correct to draw exceptions), but any deviations on their part (acceptable or otherwise) should occur naturally. —David Levy 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello David! As it turns out, I've had to tell new users to ignore policy more often than I have had to tell them to follow some policy. It is really most amusing. :-) I am somewhat surprised by your response. Weren't you intent upon maintaining IAR the way it is? I would actually expect you to support that particular edit. I'm confused. Can you explain whether you see your position here as consistent with your position at WP:IAR? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As it turns out, I've had to tell new users to ignore policy more often than I have had to tell them to follow some policy.
That's because the natural presumption is that policy must be followed. Your preferred wording might change that, and I don't believe that this would be beneficial.
I don't see how my positions are inconsistent. I strongly support WP:IAR in its present state, but I believe that your wording would be informative only to users for whom such blanket encouragement would do more harm than good. —David Levy 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A discriminatory position. Not all discrimination is illegal, however. Can you explain which groups of users are not permitted to apply IAR? --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
All users in good standing are permitted to apply IAR, but that doesn't mean that we must go out of our way to encourage a particular application by individuals who are better off erring on the side of caution. —David Levy 16:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Individuals, such as? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring to inexperienced users (as I plainly stated above). —David Levy 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
How, if I actually *want* people to ignore all rules? --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
But all adherence IS optional. We're not an exercise in bureaucratic masturbation here; we're here to actually get something useful done. The right thing and the wrong thing to do in any given situation is totally independent of so-called "policy". Even linking to IAR would still give the impression that we have "rules"--we don't. The last thing we need is a bunch of Dwight Schrutes running amok--but with the newer generation of editors, that's exactly what we're getting. This template either needs to be scrapped altogether, or completely re-worded to make it clear that "policies" are only descriptions of what's typically happened in the past, and should absolutely not be construed as binding in any situation.
New users should be encouraged to make arguments based not on what the "rules" say but what's best for the encyclopedia. When people disagree on what's best, well, that's what consensus-building is for. Each situation should be judged independently. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 23:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I like "The Office" as much as the next guy, but I cannot agree with much of what you've written. We do have rules, however breakable they may be.
We can debate semantics, but for all practical purposes, the rules are binding unless there's a good reason why they shouldn't be. And quite frankly, new users are among the least likely to know "what's best for the encyclopedia." (When I was new here, I sure as heck didn't.) As I stated above, they should be encouraged to follow policy (and advised to deviate from it only on a case-by-case basis). —David Levy 07:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
At the same time though, we shouldn't discourage editors from contributing, but should encourage them to. If an editor makes a controversial change to a policy they'll be reverted and the cycle of discussion/editing can begin. I refuse to subscribe to the idea that editors acting in good faith will make bad edits to policy pages. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I refuse to subscribe to the idea that no good-faith edit is bad. —David Levy 16:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me rephrase: not all good faith edits will be bad (but some may be), plus you totally ignored what I said preceding that. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about changes to policy. It's about advising editors to follow policy, which I don't believe discourages them from contributing. —David Levy 21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I do frequently ascribe to the view that many policies are more descriptive than prescriptive, but it is important to remember that even descriptive policy can represent long-standing and widely accepted consensus -- we have policy, guideline, and essay pages precisely so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel in every discussion. The only specific change I've seen suggested was Kim's edit; any other suggestions, or is this a time-wasting thread? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
We have policy guideline and essay pages for some purpose. But at the same time, we have a policy called IAR which stresses that all that text is just advice. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of brainstorming, a subtle tweak might suffice. Say, just stop at "a widely accepted standard," or make it "a widely accepted standard all users should generally follow," (italics intended for ease of noticing change only), optionally linking "generally" to IAR or not depending on discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, someone added links to IAR and COMMON at the guideline template, so all I'm really doing is linking them here too, in the interest of symmetry. I suspected some would protest, since some people seem to want to deprecate IAR, or some such. (It either applies or doesn't apply, make up your minds folks ;-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Straw man argument. No one is claiming that IAR doesn't apply; we're saying that it's a bad idea to encourage a particular application by individuals who are better off erring on the side of caution. —David Levy 16:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Which individuals are those? (see also above for same question, basically)) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring to inexperienced users (as I plainly stated earlier in the discussion). —David Levy 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ignore All Rules is specifically intended for inexperienced users. There is nothing they can break, so they shouldn't worry about making mistakes.
If you try to force inexperienced users to first internalize megabytes of policy, you throw up such a massive barrier to entry that we won't get very many new users.
Or, to put it in another way, to deny IAR to new users is basically the schoolbook example of biting the newcomers. (Read the guideline for detailed rationale). To summarize: We Don't Do That Here (tm).
Secondly, you cannot both claim to support WP:IAR, and then turn around and deny it to some subgroup, and you certainly cannot deny it to newcomers, as they need it most of all. That's mean! (That and "rules" either apply to everyone or to no-one, else they are unfair).
Your position is untenable; either because it is unfair, or because it is self-contradictory. Either IAR applies to all, or it is denied to all. Which do you choose?
1. IAR applies to both experienced and inexperienced users. The former are qualified to determine when it makes sense to ignore a rule with which they're familiar, while the latter needn't learn rules before editing.
2. Please stop misrepresenting my position! I've already explained that I don't seek to "deny IAR to new users," so I don't know why you're claiming otherwise.
Indeed, editors needn't "internalize megabytes of policy" before editing. But if someone chooses to visit a policy page, it's counterproductive to tag it with a message that leads them to ignore what they read. Again, experienced users (the ones qualified to determine when it makes sense to ignore a policy with which they're familiar) already know what they're allowed to do, while inexperienced users shouldn't be encouraged to ignore policies that they've actually taken the time to read. (When they know enough to make sound judgements of that nature, they'll also know that they're allowed to.) —David Levy 21:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
And yet at the same time, new users are entitled to ignore all rules, including the rule they just read. -- I understand your reasoning, but if that's your fear, then something, somewhere isn't quite worded right. I don't quite agree with it, but I can live with what you said, provided we explain exactly what you said somewhere and link to it from here (or even say it here). Any ideas where and how? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I actually think it's ok for people to ignore policy pages. My biggest issue in recent times is getting people to stop (mis)quoting policy at me and actually reach consensus... :-/
Discuss first => discuss
Surprisingly to some, "Discuss first" is rather controversial, and current consensus is actually somewhat against it. See Wikipedia talk:Consensus for more detail (or to participate in discussion there).
I've switched to plain discuss for now, until/unless people change their mind.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
At WT:CON, "discuss first" is currently under discussion (first). It is debatable whether such is good advice at Article pages. Determining the consensus for Policy Pages requires more deliberation than that. That is part of why the matter is currently under discussion at that other forum. I changed it to "When there is doubt, discuss first on the talk page". --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, so far people haven't succeeded at making a discuss first flowchart that really works, and with the latest charts in series 5, most of them do not discuss first at all. So it doesn't even work in theory ^^;; (that actually surprised me). Somewhat ironically, the status quo is still WP:BOLD . :-)
The other thing you pointed out is "if there is doubt" rather than "when you are in doubt". However, at the point you make a decision on what edit to make, you can't read other people's minds (especially since WP:SILENCE suggests you might not even know they exist initially, because watchlist contents, cliques, patrol patterns, and other more tenuous relationships are all currently not overtly visible on wikipedia.) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Still the same problem. When there is doubt... can be read to mean anyone can force talk page discussion. This is the exact opposite of what we want. We have seen that forcing talk page discussion is extremely counter-productive. You helped out on the flowcharts so you saw the theory... the practical counterpart is here, which you have also seen and commented on. So let's not mislead people into thinking that that's a good idea eh? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[6] Maybe I was too quick on the trigger, but I can't see such a long screed being accepted/acceptable, or necessary. No further comments are coming in here, where is anT.S. when ya want them? I was too quick; oh well, sorry, I will learn. (Still don't think the long screed is necessary.) Thank you--NewbyG (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[7] is fine with me. I see the point being made here, though I wasn't reading it that way. Fair enough, (I am not "in doubt", when there is no consensus, I am certain there is no consensus, lol.) --NewbyG (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[8] There is no ambiguity now. Cheers, --NewbyG (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Parameter list
I like the idea of adding categories to the template, but there's really no need to use an unnamed parameter (necessitaing eg {{policy||||||legal}} if there are no shortcuts). Why not just use a named parameter, eg |type=?? Happy‑melon 12:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Cats and iws
Why aren't the categories and interwikis inside includeonly tags? How come everything's fine this way? Am I missing something? Thanks for any explanations. --iNkubusse? 16:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Misleading text
The wording "..standard that all users should follow.." implies that it pertains to users, a false generalization. Changing to read "all editors" which refers to the very much smaller group intended.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Seal
Added an "official policy" seal, in SVG format. What do editors think? ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry... My intention was to add the new seal and revert just to have a diff. ≈ jossi ≈(talk) 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
seal of approvalStrongly support this great (and woefully overlooked) idea for a policy mascot. M 02:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Let's make the box yellow
Like too many people, it has taken me a long time to notice these boxes and that the differentiate policy, guideline and essay. Neither the text nor the graphic focused my eye. They look like advertisements to be ignored. Even after being chastised for getting confused several times, it took me a while to get in habit of noticing and checking the boxes.
Therefore I propose making the policy box yellow and the guideline box pink, leaving the essay white and the graphics. Thoughts before I boldly go and do it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Please don't. This would contradict our consensus-derived, color-coded set of namespace-based message box styles. It also would reinforce the problematic misunderstanding that we maintain a hierarchy in which policies rank above guidelines and guidelines rank above essays.
And I disagree with your theory that this would render the boxes more noticable. —David Levy 17:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Just trying to get your attention :-) Seriously, how can you make it more noticeable? I'm not the only who has this problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a widespread issue of this nature. In fact, I recently encountered the complaint that people too often see these templates and inappropriately assign too much weight to the pages on which they appear. So even if the problem that you cite exists, addressing it would exacerbate the opposite problem.
Also note that Wikipedia contains many important elements that often are overlooked or ignored. If we tried to make all of them more prominent, we'd only create an arms race (in which any benefit would be canceled out) and an uglier website. —David Levy 18:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Policy is more important than guidelines or essays, right? If I hadn't had a (pov pushing) admin (who has been warned about misusing his powers) repeatedly getting on my case for not being clear that one issue was only a guideline (or essay) and I was talking like it was a policy, I wouldn't be as concerned. If people technically can be sanctioned at some point for confusing these, it seems necessary to make it as clear as possible. Or should I complain about harassment by the admin? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No, policies are not ranked above guidelines. (That's the "problematic misunderstanding" to which I referred above.) They simply are firmer and less subject to (though not devoid of) exception.
I'm unfamiliar with the situation that you've cited (so I can't comment on whether the sysop was correct or incorrect), but problems typically stem from the mistaken beliefs that policies are sacrosanct (even when their application defies common sense) and that guidelines are optional (and may be ignored simply because someone disagrees with them).
Essays, meanwhile, contain everything from minority viewpoints to widely accepted practices. They aren't official rules, but they can be every bit as valuable.
No editor should be sanctioned for confusing a policy with a guideline. It's the failure to abide by consensus (whether that means following a rule or making an exception) that causes problems. —David Levy 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
There are three sacrosanct policies and guidelines: BB, AGF, and IAR. Sceptre(talk) 17:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, just noticed the "fragment" note on Guideline template page. Is there a more comprehensive page where this discussion needs to be? I started way back somewhere in policy/guidelines discussion without response. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This talk page an appropriate forum. I was going to suggest Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines as another possible location, but that's the page to which you referred above. (I've added a pointer to this discussion.) —David Levy 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, Maybe something shorter like this also needs to be in the boxes so those who are more careful and read them will understand this point. You wrote: No, policies are not ranked above guidelines. (That's the "problematic misunderstanding" to which I referred above.) They simply are firmer and less subject to (though not devoid of) exception. I think I did read that today on policy guidelines page, something most people never make it to. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree entirely with David: making this change would be entirely counterproductive, as it would reinforce a distinction that is fundamentally incorrect. Happy‑melon 09:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Strike the last line?
Does that line, "Any edit made to it should reflect consensus." substantially prevent random edits to policy? If not, or if minimally, let's remove it. It might also let us catch common misconceptions, since wayward clarifications would be more encouraged. For people vandalizing policy, I doubt the banner has any effect. M 16:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it does stop people changing policy on a whim, and if they try to, the template can be pointed out. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 16:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
How about "Changes made should reflect consensus"? And we could always just point them to the policy. M 17:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If it prevents people from editing policy pages on a whim (which is not the same as changing policy on a whim!) , perhaps we should remove it. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I was going to change user to editor, and remove the bolding (we don't need firm intonation when it's this short), but ended up removing the last line too. I crunched through a bunch of policy page histories, and the vast majority of reverts are for vandalism, and not people sneakily messing with policy. I think that the "here's an important page that you should not edit" thing might actually be encouraging the vandalism (BEANS). So, I removed it. I think it looks very clean and simple this way. M 02:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it possible that the wording in question successfully discouraged non-consensus edits? I've never interpreted it as an attempt to prevent anything sneaky or vandalistic, but as a means of informing editors that they should not arbitrarily revise policy pages that they disagree with (something that can be done in good faith). —David Levy 02:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
We can't tell how effective it is precisely for that reason, but I agree that if the rate of these edits suddenly jumps, that we should probably put it back. It's possible that it doesn't have much effect at all, whereas the negative effect (BEANS) seems quite likely. It may even be discouraging editors from cleaning up our policies (which are a bloody mess). M 02:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let's see what happens. —David Levy 03:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This was reverted, so as part of BRD, I'm putting it back to solicit discussion here. Before doing this, I contacted SlimVirgin to ask her to give a bit more of an explanation for the revert; her response was that the reasons were self-evident. I would however like some more info since there are three people here who have voiced that they are ok with going ahead with this, and some pretty good reasons for removing it. M 21:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't see anyone who is really arguing against removing it except you. That sentence, or something like it, has been on the template a long time, for good reason. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 01:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have never seen any good reason for it. The intended effect only causes policy pages to get more and more out of sync with actual practice, because it is much harder to get the policy page changed than it is to change actual behavior. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
